The National Association of Games and Lotteries (ANJL) and the Brazilian Institute of Responsible Gaming (IBJR) have formally requested Supreme Court judge, Minister Luiz Fux, to suspend the recently imposed ban on online betting in Brazil. This request comes following Provisional Measure 1.394, enacted on Friday, which prohibits betting site operations immediately.
In their statement, the organizations described the ban as "opportunistic and extremely serious," claiming it violates constitutional principles and poses significant risks of irreversible damage to the industry.
As amici curiae, or "friends of the court," the ANJL and IBJR have provided support in various actions, including ADIs 7.721, 7.723, and 7.749. They argue that the absence of any substantial evidence of urgency—required for issuing a Provisional Measure—means the government's immediate intervention is unjustified.
Citing official data from the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA), they noted the betting market did not witness an uptick in activities that would warrant such urgent action. In fact, from October 2025 to June 2026, there was a reported decline in financial volume by 42%.
The organizations pointed out that during the development of Law 14.790/2023, the government had promoted regulation for the betting sector and opposed amendments that restricted access for vulnerable populations. Thus, the issuance of the Provisional Measure was seen as a political maneuver lacking a technical foundation.
There is also a concern over a potential regulatory collapse and legal uncertainty stemming from the measure. The ANJL and IBJR indicated that the sudden ban dismantles a sector carefully structured by the government since January 2025, where gambling companies had invested significant resources into technology, security, and responsible gaming measures. They noted that companies had paid BRL 30 million ($5.7 million) for licenses, only to have these authorizations abruptly negated, contravening legal expectations and principles regarding economic rights.
In addition, the groups criticized the lack of a budgetary impact estimate in the Provisional Measure, as required by Article 113 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act. The betting sector contributed BRL 9.95 billion in federal taxes and BRL 2.5 billion in grants in 2025 and collected BRL 95.5 million in inspection fees. An immediate ban could eliminate future revenues and even lead to additional costs, such as severance payments under Brazil's Labor Code.
The organizations also raised alarm over the risk that the ban could drive bettors toward illegal betting platforms, which already make up a considerable portion of the market, estimating their share between 41% and 51%. They emphasized these unregulated platforms offer little protection and fewer safeguards for consumers compared to licensed operators, exposing problem gamblers to greater risks.
In their appeal, the ANJL and IBJR requested Minister Fux to suspend Provisional Measure 1,394 until Congress makes a decision or the Supreme Court evaluates the direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs). They also asked for an extension on deadlines defined in the measure by at least six months and urged the minister to prevent any asset freezes, license revocations, or fund forfeitures during the suspension.
Meanwhile, the National Association for the Legal Security of Games and Betting (Anseja) has also submitted their opposition to the Supreme Court, filing an ADI against the Provisional Measure. They requested an urgent precautionary measure to halt the measure's effects, arguing it lacks proven urgency and infringes on constitutional guidelines, jeopardizing a regulated market.
Anseja highlighted that shutting down platforms and canceling ongoing bets already represents a "first irreversible effect" of the ban. The organization cited formal flaws in the Provisional Measure, including lack of urgency and the absence of a fiscal impact assessment. They argue that such measures typically cannot be used for asset seizures or classify advertising as a criminal act.
Cautioning about the effects of the measure on public revenues, concession contracts, and significant financial flows, Anseja contends it does not meet fiscal responsibility standards. They claim the Provisional Measure also violates provisions requiring it to serve as a "perfect legal act" for protecting legitimate expectations and prevents expropriation without compensation.
Anseja has sought both immediate suspension of the measure and recognition of its formal and substantive flaws, aiming to preserve the current authorizations until a final ruling is made.
